Does a real existential threat exist to Quadraphonic?

[mandrix]

This forum to me is a place that discusses and appreciates spatial audio.

There it is.

 

[quicksrt]

This is just an anxiety ridden thread in times of inflation and other world problems I'm not going to mention here.

Maybe the OP meant to ask:
"Does a real existential threat exist to Quadraphonic Quad" And left of the last word Quad?

At any rate, nope, no threat to QQ that I can see. And strong interest in quad mixes from DV, Sony Japan, and Rhino has made for some exciting times no doubt.

 

[par4ken]

Quad for me is much more than a name. While I don't outright reject the idea of more speakers/channels I think that four is the sweet spot.
It was hard enough to convince people to add two more speakers to their music system, how on earth will the masses ever accept Atmos?

Placing speakers on the ceiling doesn't do it for me me, sonically it's a poor location. I do realise that it might be great for movie sound effects or possibly good to better reproduce hall ambience, but do most people really see the need for that?

As others have pointed out multi-channel regardless of the number of channels can be downmixed to four channels, great for us diehards. As important or more important stereo can easily be upmixed to four channels.

 

[jimfisheye]

The quad channels remain the main mix channels even in 7.1.4.
It's evolving! Growing more channels!

I still say that going from stereo to just 4.0 is a night to day experience.
Going from 4.0 or 5.1 to 7.1.4 was just another day. It was a great day to be clear! But it's just another day.

 

[mandrix]

Well we all have our 'druthers. For me 7.1.4 is here to stay. I am still a fan of quad, 5.0, 5.1, whatever for sure!

I do indeed agree with @jimfisheye that going from stereo to quad was the first major step and/or evolution for me. I bought into before I heard it; it just made sense to me, and I was not disappointed. I bought a panny player/amp and 4 large bookshelf (not premium quality) speakers came with it. I even used to run it off an inverter in my van, and carried my selection of the day Q8's around in a nice wood box a friend purpose made for that.

I've been through each evolution, from mono to stereo and onward. For now the sweet spot is 7.1.4.

I imagine that Jon could not have envisioned how the sound would morph into what it is today when he made this forum. I can not speak for him but I believe he would see the forum today as a natural evolution as many people go beyond quad.

If you personally prefer quad or 5.1 that's good with me. We each make our choices and find our happy spot, sit down and listen. That's all that is important in the long run, isn't it?

 

[CINERAMAX]

Quadraphonic sound, often regarded as the first commercial technological implementation of ego-centric acoustics, is deeply rooted in our DNA, tracing back to the cave dwellings of 20,000 years ago and the Druid Circles of England and Scotland. These ancient configurations served as primitive quad systems, primarily for percussive beats. According to "Archaeoacoustics," these early soundfields bear a remarkable similarity to modern quadraphonic systems.

In contrast, allocentric soundfields are characterized by a front stage that projects sound towards the back wall with reverberation effects. This setup is a descendant of the acoustic designs found in early European churches, where Gregorian chants exemplified the initial use of allocentric soundfields. Thus, while quadraphonic or ego-centric acoustics harken back to the very origins of human civilization, allocentric soundfields, as exemplified by original cinema and concert settings, represent a relatively newer development in the history of psychoacoustics.

 

[timbre4]

So what does it mean to, "honor the surround format?"

The QQ name is retained to honor the forum founders' choice. This forum began as a place to celebrate quadraphonic recordings and gear at a time when it was already in the rear-view for the most part. It has morphed to include new formats and equipment as they are introduced and will continue to do so.
With the recent QUADIO blu ray releases it has now come full circle.

 

[GOS]

The QQ name is retained to honor the forum founders' choice. This forum began as a place to celebrate quadraphonic recordings and gear at a time when it was already in the rear-view for the most part. It has morphed to include new formats and equipment as they are introduced and will continue to do so.
With the recent QUADIO blu ray releases it has now come full circle.

Hell yes! Well said.

 

[jimfisheye]

Stereo gets a little less exciting after surround. Quad doesn't get any less exciting after hearing more channels. It's still "on"! But 7.1.4 is very much here to stay.

 

[Doug G.]

What are you Atmos guys gonna do when Dolby comes out with AtLowmos and recommends putting in speakers below floor level? Buy/rent jackhammers?



Doug

 

[Scott65]

What are you Atmos guys gonna do when Dolby comes out with AtLowmos and recommends putting in speakers below floor level? Buy/rent jackhammers?



Doug

thankfully my house is on piers

 

[Doug G.]

thankfully my house is on piers

So then, you just need a Sawzall.



Doug

 

[Dynamic Editor]

I'm shaking, terrified that the forum QuadraphonicAtmos will soon overtake this one in popularity.

 

[Doug G.]

Wouldn't it be "Atmospheric Atmos"?



Doug

 

[Oldvalvemic]

Its pretty amazing we can create an immersive mix from a mono source ..One always wonders how well this can be implemented and its always going to interesting to see how well the sounds can be separated without artifacts (thats the main issue for me)
We listen to a mono source from a mono speaker with 2 ears and perceive its place with in a room that is giving us reflections from all around so in effect we are listening in immersive already.
The surround in all its guises is a magic trick that we all here on this forum appreciate in a variety of different ways. I listen to stereo mainly in quadraphonic now via the ubiquitous SMv3 or QS matrix decoding ..this hasnt destroyed my appreciation for any format listening to audio.
Long live the magic trick however it reaches us and its great to hear everyones ideas on how it does reach us
Having done a recent installation with a quad set of mics in one room sending 4 channels to 4 speakers in another room I can tell you a mono sound moving in room one sounds incredible and magically lifelike in room 2.
i dont see this forum threatened at all in recent times and in fact quite the opposite.
If anyone is at Glastonbury festival this year I am running a quadraphonic stage for ambient music late into the night

 

[gwlbe]

I started upmixing stereo to surround in the same year I joined the forum. The tools available now are very impressive.
A forum member shared with me a recent stereo SACD that he had upmixed to 5.1, and I must say it is very, very good.
So for one who started in mch as an early adopter of Quad, for me the quest has always been just "mch" no matter what flavor it's in.

AI is going to take it to a new level. Some neat stuff coming out. I'm not much on mixing but I was impressed with this tool: https://ultimatevocalremover.com/

 

[barfle]

It seems to me that the OP is a bit narrow in his vision of what “quad” can become, compared to what it was fifty years ago. A bit like the editors of “Stereophile” Magazine - the universe is a two-channel environment, and no new technologies need apply.

I have gear that can reasonably accurately reproduce single-channel audio, two, three, four, or five channel audio, and a handful of .1s among those varieties. I enjoy them all for what they are.

While “quad” might be a term whose time has come and gone commercially (as far as new products are concerned), most of us here seem to respect the multiple formats that founded our hobby, without feeling that any number of speakers beyond four is an abomination.

 

[mandrix]

What are you Atmos guys gonna do when Dolby comes out with AtLowmos and recommends putting in speakers below floor level? Buy/rent jackhammers?



Doug

Break out the sawzall!!

 

[armyjazzer]

There is a definate difference between "upmixing" and Quad. With original Quad the mixing engineer (probably along with the band members) worked from the multi-track and placed and or moved sounds from the multi-track where desired in the 4 channel soundfield. This was very artistic in nature and decisions were made for ambience and or artististic effects. An upmixer cannot make such decisions. Only the original artists and mix engineers can know what they desired their music to sound like in a multi-channel sound space. That is why the new releases of the original Quad recordings are so important, we get to experience what the original artist and mix engineers envisioned for their recording. It also provides a comparison for what new re-mix engineers can do with new formats using the original multi-tracks.

That said, tools like the Surround Master and software upmixers give us an opportunity to experience recordings in a multi-channel environment, that for many reasons, will probably never see a true multi-channel remix. I am thankful for that because many recordings sound fantastic upmixed through the Surround Master!

 

[jimfisheye]

An upmixer using software separation tools CAN make intentional decisions! Use the software as a tool for a specific task and only for that and don't allow any artifacts or accidental output. (As the tools allow for.)

But you can also use it more for entertainment and enjoy random results and artifacts. The whole "If it sounds right, it is right!" thing applies just the same as if a random studio accident/experiment turned out something good.

There's something really off putting to the musicians and engineers though when people do the later sometimes. "You're using my creation to play with and alter?!" Maybe even feels a little bit like it does when someone samples a bit of your song and repurposes it for theirs.

But not to tell anyone what to do! I do like to celebrate and respect the multichannel mixes as they came from the artists hands and put weight on that.